Bishop Rules 2 LGBTQ Clergy Candidates Ineligible

BWC Bishop AC 2018

Bishop LaTrelle Easterling preaches on unity during worship at the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference in Baltimore, Maryland, on May 30. Photo by Tony Richards

May 31, 2018 | BALTIMORE (UMNS)

Baltimore-Washington Area Bishop LaTrelle Easterling ruled that two individuals the Board of Ordained Ministry had approved were not eligible for ordination and commissioning because they are “self-avowed practicing homosexuals.”

She issued the ruling during the conference’s clergy session on May 30, after the Rev. Mark Gorman asked for a ruling.

Gorman asked for the bishop’s ruling after discussion about the board’s report which contained two names of individuals the board had approved but who he said did not meet the criteria set by the church’s Judicial Council for “full examination” of a candidate.

In a statement issued after the ruling, the bishop said she believes the Discipline is wrong when it states that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. “I pray that in 2019, we move away from the restrictive language in our Book of Discipline, and allow for all to really find a full and complete home within the United Methodist Church,” she said.

“The matter that was causing us to not be able to move forward was the concern that the board had not done a full inquiry, as some believe the Book of Discipline requires, and some say that Judicial Council says is required,” the bishop said. “Typically, I have 30 days to rule, but I can’t wait 30 days here tonight.”

But she said that she believes the opportunity for change is just nine months away with the special General Conference. “I will not upend that process to impose what I believe the right and just outcome to be.”

“Therefore, in good conscience and against what I believe to be an error in our Book of Discipline, I will not violate its current law. I reserve the right to reach a different conclusion if the circumstances change in the future. To those who feel harmed and violated by my decision, I offer my deep and sincere apologies, and hope you can at least understand my rationale. Again, there are no winners here,” she said.

The bishop noted that members of the board met with all 29 eligible candidates during the dinner hour on May 30 while the clergy session was in recess, and asked each for full disclosure.

The Rev. Tony Hunt, chair of the board, said that no one came forward with additional information that the board did not have already.

Two individuals, he noted, had previously stated in writing that they were married to a person of the same gender.

The Baltimore-Washington Conference Board of Ordained Ministry, under its new policy adopted last October and disclosed this past April, had decided not to ask questions of candidates around sexuality other than if they were faithful in marriage or celibate in singleness. It was that policy that was initially called into question during the clergy session.

The Rev. John Rudisill questioned Hunt, asking whether the Board acted in harmony with Judicial Council decision 1344. “Was the BOOM faithful to that decision,” he asked. “Did BOOM ask candidates if they were practicing homosexuals?”

Hunt said the board had not asked that question. “We asked if they were faithful or celibate,” he said.

Easterling, presiding at the clergy session, ruled in the afternoon session that the part of the board’s report dealing with ordination, consecration and commissioning of people to the clergy session was “out of order” because it failed to ask these mandated questions.

Hunt said that no candidate was asked any additional questions related to sexuality or practice during their earlier examinations. He added that the “full examination” consisted of psychological reports, credit checks, effectiveness in ministry reports and recommendations from numerous persons. “It includes multiple facets of a person’s life,” he said.

The bishop issued her ruling of law, based on Judicial Council decision 1341, the current language of the Board of Discipline, and the rules of the Baltimore-Washington Conference.

In a statement, Tara “T.C.” Morrow, a candidate for deacon’s orders and full membership who is married to another woman, said that she was not going to give up her quest.

“I am convicted now as ever that God is calling me to continue to put myself forward as a candidate,” she said. “I pray above all else for grace and fortitude to be faithful as a disciple of my Savior, Jesus Christ.”

Morrow is a member of Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, and that church issued a statement in full support of Morrow. “We affirm that T.C. is called by our Creator into ordained ministry,” the church statement read in part. “We firmly stand by her as she continues to faithfully respond and serve.”

The Rev. Erik Alsgaard is managing editor in the Ministry of Communications for the Baltimore-Washington Conference.

Tags

Comments (7)

Bishop of Color Upholds Biggotry

And what would this particular bishop's response have been, once upon a time, when she herself would have been denied ordination due to her skin color or gender?

What incredible hypocrisy!

Ben67 days ago

AT Least this bishop

Has a little respect for Methodist ways, even though disagreeing. So many have been deceived on sexuality. One day the present life will be over. What will they do then? It's not too late to turn back to God.

Skipper68 days ago

The acceptance of same sex marriage

While churches are not expected to base their doctrines on popularity, it is instructive to note a Gallup poll taken last month. Those who oppose same sex marriage have fallen to 31% while those who favor it have now reached 67%. This may prove an obstacle to UMC growth in the US.

UMC BoD endorses civil unions IMO.

My interpretation is that the paragraph below is essentially an endorsement of civil unions. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of GC delegates are in the 67%. It would be weird to have voted for 162.J and not answer that you support same sex marriage when you support civil unions. I think one would answer the intent of the survey question.

162.J) Equal Rights Regardless of Sexual Orientation—Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation. We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting the rightful claims where people have shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships that involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law. Moreover, we support efforts to stop violence and other forms of coercion against all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.

Chad70 days ago

Hmmm...

Greater New Jersey Conference petitioned the 2016 GC to add "civil marriage" and "civil unions" in 162.J following "mutual powers of attorney." They weren't added, so it's a bit of a stretch to infer the inclusion of something so obviously not added. Even if civil unions were added, they're not synonymous with sacred marriages. To support one and not the other is no more "weird" than to declare both that "homosexual persons are of sacred worth" and that the "PRACTICE of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching."

John68 days ago

Hmmm.

I agree that GC would not want to add 'civil union' especially after the case was already decided. It doesn't add anything. GC supports the rights that are involved in civil unions. Civil unions are not synonymous with marriage. The rights under both from the government are the same. That's at least the way I've looked at it. In a perfect world, we would all get civil unions from the government and the church would give out marriages. I view it as a little impractical to go back and do it that way. It's not weird to support civil unions but not Christian marriage for gays. What would be weird is to support civil unions but then answer on a survey that you don't support same sex marriage which is essentially the same thing. I don't think most people get into the definitions as much as this conversation. In general, I think the current BoD social policies show a lot of thought about very minute details that aren't reflected in a general poll survey of Americans. IMO.

Chad68 days ago

Very Methodist position

"I have encountered those who state that they simply want to follow the Book of Discipline, they disparage those who won’t follow it, and criticize leaders who stray from it. And yet, when you ask them what they will do when the Book of Discipline changes, they state emphatically that they will leave. So, for them it cannot be about the Book of Discipline. I believe the Book of Discipline is wrong, and I have remained. I love this denomination, warts and all. My parents remained through the Central Jurisdiction. My mother remained although when she first felt called into ministry, there was no place for her here. She remained until she could find both her voice and her credentialing to preach."This is how a Methodist argues! No one has come to me with a compelling reason to affirm and model homosexuality. I believe the people she is referring believe it comes down to the Bible. I think the Bible makes a lot of good points about what one should do when one does or doesn't think an act is sinful. Love God and love others are the primary commandments.

Chad74 days ago

Notable Quotes

"Those who use hate-filled tactics to 'defend truth'" whether in politics or religion, betray the essence of truth. Truth and love are conjoined twins giving life to one another. They are heart and brain working in concert; severing them means death to both."

– Retired United Methodist Bishop Kenneth Carder on Facebook.

DONATE TO OUR MISSION

If you value receiving United Methodist Insight, please contribute to our financial support. Make checks payable to our sponsoring congregation, St. Stephen UMC, and write "UM Insight" on the memo line. Then mail to United Methodist Insight, c/o St. Stephen United Methodist Church, 2520 Oates Drive, Mesquite, TX 75150.